Bwalter

I had an '02 A4 3.0Q and an '06 A4 Avant 2.0TQ, loved 'em both. Then I went awry and picked up an '08 Acura RDX. Well, I'm coming back to Audi once the lease is up this fall. SO... the Q5's my choice, so now I need to figure some things out.

This time I'm buying, and I've got some time to custom-order if I need to.

Engine: My '06 A4 Avant had the 2.0T and I didn't think it was slow, but this Q5 would be 400-500lb heavier. So far my local dealer has only had the 2010 3.2 in stock and that was punchy enough but the idea of the 2.0T and 8-speed Tip intrigues me. I also drive up in higher altitudes at times; I remember my '02 A4 3.0 with 4 passengers getting sluggish up at the mile-high mark. A turbocharger would negate some of that.

Also, this one's [sadly] affected by packages. I kinda want the Prestige package for the added features, even if over-priced, but that means I have to get the 3.2. I'm planning to own this car for a while, and see what not having a car payment is like... so why shouldn't I get more features?

Color: What happened to Red Garnet Metallic? I was so enamored with the idea of finally going back to my usual red car habit after two silvers and now I'm sad. The local dealer only ever carries the blacks, whites, silvers... and I'm not doing that again. The Teak Brown Metallic looks kinda fugly, so I'm left with Blue. Hrm.

My employer partners with VW/Audi so I can get the cars for just over dealer invoice. That puts the loaded 2.0T Prem+ at around $41,100, the 3.2 Prem+ at $44,000, or the 3.2 Prestige at $47,100. Pretty wide margin there!

Decisions, decisions...

dsackman

I went to test drive the 2.0T Q5 yesterday and came away VERY impressed. A few comments on your predicament:

> The 2.0 has more torque than the 3.2, but less HP.
> The turbo motor does not lose power at altitude.
> The 2.0T TFSI motor is not the same motor you had in your '06 Avant. The torque figures are arund 255ft/lb. I have this motor in my A4 and she is superb.
> The '10 Q5 3.2's are available for as little as $1,000 BELOW dealer invoice! They want them off the lot for the '11 models.
> That 8-speed gear box is really sweet.

Although the $1,000 below dealer invoice for a '10 3.2 sounds appealing, I am leaning towards a '11 2.0T with the Premium Plus package. Still over $40k, but you get a lot of car for that.

I hope this helps.


.

FitzLA

I drive up to the mountains in my 3.2 just about every other weekend (to about 7000 ft in elevation) and it never gets sluggish. I fly all the way up.

Steamer

Resurrecting a bit of an old thread. Also interested in this discussion and whether anyone has additional input.

We have a 2003 A4 with the 1.8T and 5 speed manual. When travelling through the mountains, it has never given us trouble and I can't think of the last time I even had to shift out of 5th with the cruise control on.

Recognizing that the Q5 will be a bit heavier but also that it only had 170 hp and about the same torque (I think it was 170 lb ft), I would suspect the 2.0 will be more than adequate. I also see that the 2.0 hits its optimal torque at a really low RPM vs. the 3.2.

We've test driven both and the difference is hard to perceive. Unfortunately, the test drive was only around town with no way to use the cruise on a big hill at highway speed. Further thoughts on the capabilities of the 2.0 vs. 3.2 would be appreciated.

zaki626

I drive the 3.2 up through the Rockies regularly and I'm impressed with the power and overall refinement.
I came from a 2001 A4 1.8T. I don't miss the turbo lag and the non-linear power delivery. I do miss rowing my own gears, however.

Kozmo

I have owned the small displacement Audi turbo motors in the past, but with a big car I like the larger displacement 3.2 motor .. More linear and plenty of power....and i think better from 60-80mph in passing moves with the larger horsepower... my 2 cents

Houstonmobilian

After driven several 2.0T engine vehicles, I can tell you that I am more than impressed with the perfect new combo 8-speed transmission and the sweet engine. You could barely notice the turbo-lag. I couldn't be happier to opt for the fewer cylinder with more torque engine.

audihonda

i have about 4000 miles on my Q5 with the 2.0t.
power is more than adequate in normal driving. as others have said, there is no significant difference except that the 2.0t might be a bit stronger at low RPMs. however, on the freeway, when i floor the gas, i don't really feel a surge in acceleration. i suspect in this respect, the 3.2 would shine, owing to the higher HP at > 4000 RPM.

but to me, the only disappointment (and it's a minor one) is that the 2.0 motor doesn't sound as good as the 3.2. of course the benefit is the better fuel economy and lower price.

Huey52

I concur with others. I recently test drove the 2.0T and am very impressed with its rapid turbo spool up. The 8-speed auto should keep it in the optimal powerband all the way up the curve, including at altitude.

The G Man

That was how I felt after my 15 minute test drive of the 2.0T, I ask myself, why would anyone buy the 3.2L at $4000 more. Last month, we had a 2.0T loaner for the whole weekend and we realized why the 3.2L cost more. The 3.2 is smoother and quieter during highway passing, and one need to wind up the 2.0T engine to pass other cars at high speed. The 3.2L do not have this problem. Is this advantage on the highway worth an extra $4000? Some may say yes and some will say heck no, it really depends on what the buyer is looking for. Personally, I think both engine is under powered, I cant wait until the 3.0T Q5